Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011

[poynt99]

A clarification of the scope results presented for the self-oscillating circuit.

All measurements are instantaneous (t) except for the resulting average power of the battery taken from p(t). The resulting average of V_CSR(t) x V_BAT(t) as shown on the schematic is -125W.

.99

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Guys - a friend of mine got his circuit apparatus to work away from the functions generator and is running the switch off the same battery supply source.  12 volts took the temperature of the solder iron to 235 degrees centigrade and climbing.  The results still a little brittle as after a time the waveform collapsed.  Anyway - it's very good news as this is further proof that these results are NOT the result of grounding issues.  And it seems that his design for the function generator replacement - works.  Just needs fine tuning.  I should learn more about this on Sunday.

And Poynty - I realise you want to discuss the significance of your sims - on forum here - but I'll pass - at least until this thread is cleaned up.  I'm growing weary of picking my path around turd droppings.  If and when Harti affords us the protection required for this kind of information - then I think we'd both be happy to disclose, discuss, debate - in public here.  Until then - I'll just stick to the disclosures of our results.  And thanks for clarifying those results across the CSR.

And I'll start with that waveform that we generated last night - which, unfortunately, only lasted less than an hour.  It defaulted to a higher frequency - and the temperature dropped radically and fast.  No significant variation in either case to the battery voltages.

Regards,
Rosemary

ABJECT APOLOGIES - THE FIRST WAS THE WRONG WAVEFORM.  THIS SCREEN DOWNLOAD APPLIES.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

And just to round off here - just a gentle reminder to all readers.  That Harti is tolerating Glen's posts is PROOF that he is trying to get rid of this information.  He is not banning me outright - as I have not breached ANY required protocols.  Glen on the other hand is doing so and doing it FLAGRANTLY. 

I am reasonably satisfied that the RomeroUK demonstration is a hoax as admitted by Romero.  The reason that Harti is giving this his support is because it will make it seem as if he is plugging over unity interests.  He CANNOT ignore the evidence that we've presented - as vouched for by 6 qualified engineers - 15 members of the public at a public demonstration - as recorded impeccably by the most sophisticated measuring equipment - and as presented in our report - unless he is determined to deflect these facts away from public view and to somehow deny them.

Please be warned.  These forums are NOT intended to promote OU technologies but to frustrate them. There can be no other explanation.

Regards,
Rosemary

[Rosemary Ainslie]

And clearly everyone is way too embarrassed at the blatant posting abuses that are going on here to speak up in my defense.  These forums are harsh and characterised by an entirely inappropriate politicising that are spawned from Hell and initialised by Gobbels. Shame on you all.  I am an old woman - for God's sake.  And I'm simply trying to alert you all to the reality of our own test results as opposed to the openly acknowledged fraudulent misrepresentations of Romero.  I am entirely satisfied that his demonstration of perpetual motion was introduced as a much needed distraction to these truths that we're uncovering.  And I'm now satisfied that Harti had grown so used to hearing of my idiocy and incompetence that he had also grown to believe it.  Therefore this offer to expose this technology here on his forum was simply intended as an easy route to public discreditation of the results that we are showing.  Since that failed - he's attempting a dual attack including a vicarious incineration of the thread by one party and outright denial of our results by another.

Here's what CANNOT be denied.  Measurement of energy delivered by a supply source can ONLY be based on wattage calculated as vi dt.  The ONLY way to calculate amperage delivered is by putting a shunt with a low resistive value in series with the supply to determine the rate of current flow.  And the only way to measure the voltage across the battery is to put a volt meter across the battery.  And then one needs to compute the product of those two values - in real time.  And the ONLY way to do this correctly is to allow for as many samples as is possible.  And this is PERFECTLY enabled by the LeCroy that we use extensively as it offers a sample range typically of 500 000 samples per screen download.  And that LeCroy is ALSO able to compute the product of the voltage across both the shunt resistor and the battery IN REAL TIME.  That's the math function.  And at optimised settings on our circuit that math function PROVES the results - being that there is more energy that is returned to the supply than was first delivered.  IT'S COP INFINITY.  And IT'S THAT SIMPLE.  And it's THAT UNDENIABLE.

What has been called for is that we run those tests to prove that the battery exceeds it's watt hour ratings.  I put it to you - Harti -  that were I do do this test then those results would ALSO BE CONTENDED.  And I'd be embroiled in detailed and expensive tests for a month or so with NO SATISFACTION for this argument and this evidence.  Under the absurd banner for demanding 'extraordinary proof' to establish an 'extraordinary claim' the fact is that ANY required proof is intended to NEVER actually be sufficient.  Were we to be given ABSOLUTE ASSURANCE that the 'battery draw-down' tests would constitute conclusive proof - then I am on record.  I would personally finance that test.  But for some reason it is EXPECTED OF US to perform this test with NO GUARANTEES WHATSOEVER that it would make any material difference to the ENTIRE LACK OF CREDIBILITY that our test results elicit.

This is a sad day for me.  Because I am also now aware of the fact that Poynty is posting evidence of the same results that we are getting in his simulations and YET he is denying the very evidence that he's uncovering.  Surprisingly - he supports the highly questionable claims of Romero's.  You see what gives folks.  The intention is to distract and confuse and deny and debate.  The trick is NEVER TO ACKNOWLEDGE.  And if you do lend support - let it be for facts that are never likely to be repeated.  Not on highly repeatable evidence - showing up  on EACH AND EVERY variation of the circuit that we are attempting.  This media for the promotion of over unity is a FARCE.  It is ABSOLUTELY designed to bury all claims that prove over unity and to allow NOTHING but evidence that remains entirely debatable and entirely unsupported.  And then ask yourselves - as I do repeatedly - WHAT in FACT is going on here?  WHY are we, the public being enticed to make any disclosures at all?  Because what they result in is THE URGENT EFFORTS of some skilled players - to ABSOLUTELY DENY EVERYTHING.

My comfort is in the enormous readership that this thread enjoys.  At least - out there - are many who can still learn of our advances.  And until Harti actually bans me - I intend making that information very well advertised and very well known.  Else this will simply disappear from any public notice at all.  And then we can kiss goodbye to any hope of furthering this worthy cause which - I suspect - is what is actually behind the agenda of these forums.

And I challenge Harti to deny this and prove me wrong and do what is required to CLEAN UP THIS THREAD.  Else there is absolute endorsement of this agenda.  I've said this before.  There can be NO OTHER EXPLANATION.

Regards,
Rosemary     

[poynt99]

This is a sad day for me.  Because I am also now aware of the fact that Poynty is posting evidence of the same results that we are getting in his simulations and YET he is denying the very evidence that he's uncovering.     

Consider the cup as half-full Rose. The fact that I am able to show evidence produced by a simulation that is similar to your own, is a good thing.

The only sad part in my opinion, is that no one, including yourself has yet questioned or challenged the results I have presented.

.99